The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-08-31
SIGNS MUST COME DOWN.
IF THEY EXTEND ACROSS THE
PAVEMENT OR A PART THEREOF.

An Interesting Case Before the Mayor
An Ordinance that was Never Heed
ed to be Enforced-A Neat Case Made
Upon Some Of the Aldermen-Mayor
Lester on Trial Before Himself
In the Mayors Court yesterday morning
the case of Simon Mitchell was tried. Mr.
Mitchell was placed upon the information
docket for erecting a huge golden arm upon
post in front of his place of business, and
the information was filed by City Marshal
Wade, who acted under an ordinance passed
in 1872, which is as follows:
The Mayor and Aldermen Of the city of Savan-
nah in Council assemb cd do hereby ordain,
That il 10 shall not be lawful for any person to
put up, erect or repair any sign or wooden
awning across any street, pavement, lane or
thoroughfare, or any part thereof, in the city OF
Savannah and that whenever any such sign or
awning, now so erected, shall, from any reason
whatsoever, be displaced or removed, or be- out
of repair il shall not be lawful 10 rebuild replace
or repair such sign or awning in violation OF the
true meaning and intent of this ordinance.
The ordinance then goes on TO provide
how awnings to be erected shall be con
structed but makes no provision for the
erection in any fashion of signs.
The golden arm was removed from its
perch in order that it might be re-gilded,
and when the carpenters were at work put
ting it back Mr.. Wade happened to pass by
and he told Mr. Mitchell that it was VIC
lation of the ordinance to put up the sign
Mr.. Mitchell called afterwards upon the
Marshal and was informed that
he could put the sign upon an iron post
Later he received letter from the Clerk Of
the Council instructing him that the sign
could not be put back in its old place. Mr.
l,,lI l.. n.
quiring about the matter, but receiving no
reply he put up the sign. He was then
placed upon the information docket and the
case came to trial with S. B. Adams, Esq,
representing the city, and j. r Saussy
Esq, the defendant. Aldermen Duncan,
Myers, Nichols and Thomas were present,
and some of them testified as to signs in
front of their respective places
The testimony in the case was heard and
the arguments made, Mr.. Adams holding
that the ordinance plainly made any sign
which extended across the sidewalk or a
part of the sidewalk unlawful. The de-
Tense was that the ordinance was generally
received as meaning that all signs should be
securely put up. Mr. Saussy went on to
show that the very Board of Aldermen that
passed the ordinance consented to its viola
ton, and that successive Aldermen had dis
regarded it. The decision of the Mayor
taken down. Mayor Lester fined Mr.
Mitchell $40 for violating the ordinance,
but said he would remit the fine if the sign
was removed within fifteen days.
1t caused some amusement when ii it was
brought out in the testimony that DR.. Dun
cans sign extended across a part of the side
walk; that Mr.. Myers sign stretched across
the entire pavement that Mr.. Nichols had
put up a sign on post within the last three or
four months; that the Mayors law office
was decorated with a sign that constantly
violated the ordinance; that Mr.. ThoUuas
had taken down sign from on
post only the previous day
and that Mr.. Adams law sign
no longer swung from rod, but was nailed
against the wall. This information was
brought out by Mr.. Saussy to show that the
Aldermen and city officials did not consider
the ordinance in question operative.
1t is said that Mr.. Wade will make up a
list of all the signs now extending over the
line of the sidewalk and that all of them
will have to be removed.